Languages

UN: Security Council Resolution 1373 to combat terrorism

The UN Security Council passed resolution 1373 (2001) which requires all states to take sweeping measures to 'combat' terrorism and opens the door to the use of force as one means of doing so.

On 1st October we posted an URGENT request for you to endorse a letter which was circulated by the Women's Caucus
for Gender Justice for the International Criminal Court (ICC), New York. You can now read the Open Letter sent to all members of the UN General Assembly on Monday, 1 October, after the Security Council's rapid adoption of resolution 1373 on international cooperation to combat threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts.

As you may recall, a sign-on letter
was circulated immediately after the Security Council adopted the resolution to
raise awareness of some of the problematic aspects of the resolution, including
the fact that it leaves "terrorism" undefined but requires sweeping actions on
the part of states to combat terrorism. The letter raised the concerns about
potential for abuse by some governments as a result of the open-endedness of the
resolution and the particular vulnerability of refugees and
asylum-seekers.

Many signed on to the petition in a very short period of
time which was sent to the General Assembly and members of the
media.

Some states, such as Malaysia, also pointed out some of the
problems with the resolution and the potential for abuse of its provisions while
simultaneously concurring with the need to take concrete steps to address
terrorism. For a summary of each country's intervention at the high-level
debate, please see
www.reachingcriticalwill.org/1com/terror.html

color=#000000>OPEN LETTER FROM NGO'S TO THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY REGARDING TERRORISM DEBATE

1-2 October 2001,
United Nations

We are writing to express our profound concern about
Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). While some aspects of the resolution,
which was hurriedly debated and passed on September 28, 2001, are necessary and
appropriate to address terrorist acts, certain aspects of the resolution give
cause for concern. We urge that the members of the General Assembly consider
carefully the implications of resolution 1373 and work to clarify certain
aspects of the resolution.

1. Terrorism undefined invites
abuse

First among our concerns is that the resolution details
sweeping measures to combat terrorism without defining what terrorism is. In
light of the differing opinions among the international community as to what
constitutes terrorism, we are extremely concerned that the open-endedness of the
resolution is vulnerable to abuse.

We are particularly concerned that
parts of the resolution could be used to justify:

– Independent actions
by states, acting singly or in concert but outside the direction and command of
the United Nations, against alleged perpetrators of terrorism and/or states
allegedly supporting such acts (Preamble para 5 and para 3 ( c ));

–
Serious curtailment of civil, political and human rights of citizens and
persons, in particular, refugees, immigrants and other individuals presumed to
have such status or be from targeted minority groups (para 3 (f &
g)).

2. Justice not vengeance and war

A critical
question -- for which history will hold the United Nations accountable and judge
the efficacy of its mission -- is whether the world community will endorse the
use of force rather than the processes of justice and the rule of law. The world
community is poised to usher into being, for the first time in history, an
International Criminal Court. The ultimate goal of such Court is to try the
perpetrators of crimes against humanity and other international crimes. The
approval of the Rome Treaty and the speed with which states are ratifying that
treaty attests to the importance of substituting justice for force as a primary
means to ensure peace and security.

History has demonstrated that to
meet violence with violence rather than the rule of law perpetuates the cycle of
violence. By contrast, the hope of this new millennium is that justice can
substitute for violence and thus break that deadly cycle. To those who committed
the September 11 attack, the authorization of a violent response is precisely
the victory they seek. By contrast, those who condemn this barbarous act must
defy those expectations and stand for justice, and through justice, the
restoration of peace and respect for the rule of law.

As many of our
organizations represent the rights and needs of women, we must insist upon the
fact that the most numerous victims of war are the women and children. They
represent the overwhelming majority of those amassed now at the borders of
Afghanistan; it is the women and children who are the majority of the civilian
population murdered, raped and otherwise brutalized in time of war.

The
response to such threats as represented by September 11 must give primacy to the
rule of law and be vested in an international body such as the United Nations
and not in individual nations or collectivities of nations. We therefore call on
the members of the General Assembly to set precedents in the interpretation of
the Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) and pass a declaration qualifying
the interpretation of the Security Council resolution as follows:

– it
does not sanction the use of force and repressive measures to combat
terrorism

– it primarily seeks justice in international and domestic
courts for acts of international terrorism

– it calls upon states to be
guided by principles and processes of international law in their pursuit of
justice, including the detailing of charges, the issuance of international
warrants and requests for extradition, the arrest of the accused and the
provision of due process

– it lays emphasis on states becoming parties
to, implementing and using the international conventions on prevention and
combating of terrorism

– emphasizes the need to ensure that all actions
taken to identify, prevent and punish terrorism are consistent with the
protection of political and civil rights, including the prevention of
discrimination and protection of minorities.

While passing resolutions
aimed at maintaining or restoring international peace and security is the
primary responsibility of the Security Council, it is a responsibility that must
be discharged with utmost care and diligence ensuring that such actions do not
pose a further threat to the international community.

The United Nations
was founded to save succeeding generations from the 'scourge of war.' In
carrying out its responsibilities to maintain or restore international peace and
security at this moment in time, the Security Council must find the appropriate
balance between measures which will truly address this heinous form of violence
and those which will exacerbate and perpetuate the breach of international peace
and security.

The General Assembly at crucial moments in the history of
the United Nations has taken important steps in the absence of Security Council
action or to clarify counsel action. We urge all member states to take the above
into consideration during the debates on terrorism taking place Monday and
Tuesday, October 1-2. At this critical moment, it is necessary that the General
Assembly carefully reflect on its own important role in the maintenance of
international peace and security.

This is an
URGENT request for you to endorse a letter circulated today by the Women's
Caucus for Gender Justice for the International Criminal Court (ICC), New York.
Sign on by MONDAY 1st October 10 am NY time or fax on MONDAY directly to
Security Council members.

color=#000000>ACTION REQUESTED -
ENDORSE THE LETTER BELOW

1) Add your organisation's name
by Monday 1st October 10.00am New York Time by sending email to
caucus@iccwomen.org Or2) Send
faxes (using the letter below) or your own letter to the representatives listed
below by Tuesday 2nd October 2001.

Letter to all member states of the
United Nations

While some aspects of Security Council resolution 1373
(2001), which was hurriedly debated and passed on September 28, 2001, are
necessary and appropriate to address terrorist acts, certain aspects of the
resolution give cause for concern.

First among those concerns is that
the resolution details sweeping measures to combat terrorism without defining
what terrorism is. In light of the differing opinions among the international
community as to what constitutes terrorism, we are extremely concerned that the
open-endedness of the resolution is vulnerable to abuse. Further, we are
concerned that parts of the resolution could be used to justify:

·
Independent actions by states, acting singly or in concert but outside the
direction and command of the United Nations, against alleged perpetrators of
terrorism and/or states allegedly supporting such acts (Preamble para 5 and para
3 ( c ));

· Serious curtailment of civil, political and human rights of
citizens and persons, in particular, refugees, immigrants and other individuals
presumed to have such status or be from targeted minority groups (para 3 (f
& g)).

A critical question -- for which history will hold the United
Nations accountable and judge the efficacy of its mission--is whether the world
community will endorse the use of force rather than the processes of justice and
the rule of law. The world community is poised to usher into being, for the
first time in history, an International Criminal Court. The ultimate goal of
such Court is to try the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and other
international crimes. The approval of the Rome Treaty and the speed with which
states are ratifying that treaty attests to the importance of substituting
justice for force as a primary means to ensure peace and security.

History has demonstrated that to meet violence with violence rather than
the rule of law perpetuates the cycle of violence. By contrast, the hope of this
new millennium is that justice can substitute for violence and thus break that
deadly cycle. To those who committed the September 11 attack, the authorization
of a violent response is precisely the victory they seek. By contrast, those who
condemn this barbarous act must defy those expectations and stand for justice,
and through justice, the restoration of peace and respect for the rule of
law.

As an organization that represents the rights and needs of women, we
must insist upon the fact that the most numerous victims of war are the women
and children. They represent the overwhelming majority of those amassed now at
the borders of Afghanistan; it is the women and children who are the majority of
the civilian population murdered, raped and otherwise brutalized in time of war.

The response to such threats as represented by September 11 must give
primacy to the rule of law and be vested in an international body such as the
United Nations and not in individual nations or collectivities of nations. We
therefore call on the members of the General Assembly to set precedents in the
interpretation of the Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) and pass a
declaration qualifying the interpretation of the Security Council resolution as
follows:

· it does not sanction the use of force and repressive measures
to combat terrorism

· it primarily seeks justice in international and
domestic courts for acts of international terrorism

· it calls upon
states to be guided by principles and processes of international law in their
pursuit of justice, including the detailing of charges, the issuance of
international warrants and requests for extradition, the arrest of the accused
and the provision of due process

· it lays emphasis on states becoming
parties to, implementing and using the international conventions on prevention
and combating of terrorism

. emphasizes the need to ensure that all
actions taken to identify, prevent and punish terrorism are consistent with the
protection of political and civil rights, including the prevention of
discrimination and protection of minorities.

While passing resolutions
aimed at maintaining or restoring international peace and security is the
primary responsibility of the Security Council, it is a responsibility that must
be discharged with utmost care and diligence ensuring that such actions do not
pose a further threat to the international community.

The United Nations
was founded to save succeeding generations from the 'scourge of war.' In
carrying out its responsibilities to maintain or restore international peace and
security at this moment in time, the Security Council must find the appropriate
balance between measures which will truly address this heinous form of violence
and those which will exacerbate and perpetuate the breach of international peace
and security.

The General Assembly at crucial moments in the history of
the United Nations has take important steps in the absence of Security Council
action or clarify counsel action. We urge all member states to take the above
into consideration during the debates on terrorism taking place Monday and
Tuesday, October 1-2. At this critical moment, it is necessary that the General
Assembly carefully reflect on its own important role in the maintenance of
international peace and security.

Signed,

-International Women's
Human Rights Law Clinic, New York-Women's Caucus for Gender Justice, New
York-Women Living Under Muslim Laws, international solidarity network,
UK-Shirgat Gah, Women's resource Center, Pakistan-Center for Women's
Global Leadership, New York-MADRE, New York

color=#000000>RELEVANT CONTACTS AND FAXES LISTED
BELOW

Contact Information for Security Council Members
(email addresses listed when available):

The Security Council of the
United Nations quickly adopted a resolution no. 1373 (2001) which requires all
states to take sweeping measures to 'combat' terrorism and opens the door to the
use of force as one means of doing so.

While passing resolutions aimed at maintaining or
restoring international peace and security is the primary responsibility of the
Security Council, it is a responsibility that must be discharged with utmost
care and diligence ensuring that such actions do not pose a further threat to
the international community.

While some aspects of the current Security
Council resolution are commendable and will go a long way in dealing with
terrorism, there are other aspects which have the potential to cause further
threats to international peace.

One alarming aspect of the resolution is
that terrorism is not defined for purposes of the resolution which mandates
sweeping measures to combat terrorism. On the issue of the lack of a consensus
about what terrorism is, Britain's UN Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock simply said:
``for most of the time, if something looks like a terrorist and makes a noise
like a terrorist, it's a terrorist - and we now know what to do about it in
terms of what we set out in this resolution.''

Another matter of concern
is the manner in which this resolution was passed. Since the September 11, 2001
attack on the WTC and the Pentagon, the United Nations has heightened security
around its building. NGO access to the building is restricted. As such there was
no presence of civil society to know what was going on and intervene in the
process. Some who had information on the impending resolution understood the
resolution would be passed on Monday Oct.1, 2001.

However, the
resolution was hurriedly passed on Friday evening. Clearly, the US wanted the
full support and backing of the United Nations to any actions or use of force
against any states they claim to be responsible for the September 11,
2001.

A high-level debate on terrorism is scheduled IN the General
Assembly on Monday and Tuesday October 1-2, 2001. In light of this rushed
resolution by the Security Council, it is now even more important that states
hear from people from their respective countries of the danger some of the
language of the Security Council poses to international peace and security and
of its potential interpretation to seriously curtail civil, political and human
rights of asylum seekers, refugees and other members of minority groups
internationally.

We reproduce below a statement that we plan to send by
email and/or fax to member states of the United Nations by evening of September
30, 2001. We ask you to either sign on to this letter or draft your own with a
few points as bottom line i.e. danger of Security Council sanction of use of
force to combat terrorism, urge primacy of rule of law and resolution of
international issues through justice and courts of law. We ask that you send the
letter to your government mission at the United Nations and to all fifteen
members of the Security Council.

We further ask that you send this urgent action alert to
networks in your own countries to generate as many individuals and organizations
to send emails to your respective missions.

Through these actions we
hope to get governments to qualify the Security Council resolution so as not to
interpret the resolution as a sanction for any states to use force unilaterally
to combat terrorism.